Goldman Sachs CEO: Americans Should Work Longer

Raise the retirement age, says Lloyd Blankfein

The retirement age must be raised, said Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, to CBS. "Social Security wasn't devised to be a system that supported you for a 30-year retirement after a 25-year career," he explained, taking some artistic license in mentioning a "30-year retirement" since the current retirement age is 65 but the current life expectancy is not 95 years.

Blankfein's larger point is one that's often made: It's only common sense to raise the retirement age for Social Security, people say, because life expectancy has risen since the program was founded.

But while life expectancy has risen 6 years for those at Blankfein's income level, it's risen only 1.3 years for the lower half of the income distribution since 1977, according toWaPo's Ezra Klein.

Klein writes that the people who argue loudest for raising the retirement age - politicians, pundits, and CEOs - won't feel the pain themselves. As he puts it, they "don't want to retire at age 65, and they don't have short life expectancies, and they're not mainly relying on Social Security for their retirement income. They're bravely advocating a cut they'll never feel."

I can't understand why we continue to allow the unaffected to make these decisions for us. These Captains of Corporations and Government don't live by the same rules as the rest of us. Yet we continue to let them determine our fates. It's time, way past time, to take the power back. Vote the parties in power out...NOW. Stop this cowardice ignorance.

@nolefties Stop clinging to the notion that everyone below the poverty level doesn't work. They do. They're just working long hard hours at minimum wage jobs that aren't a living wage. So, yeah, they are affected. I don't know how the fanatics managed to take some skewed demographics info and turn it into "47% of the country is unemployed" when that is patently ridiculous.

@nolefties Are you aware there are laws as to what age you must take the finds from your ira plan out? People were that age when the market crashed lost over 50 peecent of their retirement fubd at that time. I'd say the banks that created this mess bshould compensate those who can prove the loss. And the market may be back, but people put out of their homes had their lives destroyed, and Goldman makes out like a bandit...

Let's go all the way on this, Mr. Blankfein, and have the riff-raff work until they die and never collect retirement. This might be hurried along by eliminating OSHA, so that more could be killed on the job, and not providing healthcare benefits for workers so that they'll die sooner if they get sick or survive their injuries. And if they're still alive but maimed and unable to work, they can just beg for a living. Turn the clock back to the 1890's, the good old days of unfettered capitalism.

We could also eliminate a few of the working class by allowing factory owners to bring back the bullyboy strikebreakers like in the good ol' days. A few dead laborers as the result of a strike does wonders to persuade workers they can get by if their children skip wearing shoes. Afterall, winter isn't *that* long... I wish more people understood what the law of the jungle really looks like in action.

My parents are in their mid sixties. They were forced into retirement under Obama. They spent their life savings trying to save their house, which was eventually sold on a short sale. With the job market the way it is they cannot get a job. They are now part of the country that has given up looking for work. Without the social security they could not survive. It must be nice to be an overpaid CEO who has no problem screwing everyone else over.

Your parents lost their jobs and their house due to the policies of the Bush administration. If people like you and your parents had elected more liberal representatives there would have been more regulation of the housing industry which might have prevented the real estate crash completely and there would have been stronger rules in place to prevent age discrimination that might have made it easier for them to find work. Right wingers like you vote against your own best interests. I am sure that you will be hostile to this message but in the off chance that you have any reason left maybe it will turn the light bulb on.

@Big-R That was only part of the problem. The really big problem was the banks selling high-risk loans to each other in a game of musical chairs. And it was lifting of regulations which allowed them to do that.

@Zazziness Completely agreed. You have a great grasp on the situation. Thank you for providing some real thought into the matter. And yes, you can blame the deregulation on the Republicans, but the Democrats used it to their political advantage as well. That is obvious by who was given loans, then how the government bailed out those banks responsible with tax payer funds. I think every bank which was involved in the scandal should have been disoolved. To big to fail my ass. The tax payers lost 1.3 Billion dollars in the bailout of Chrysler Corporation. And the only thing Chrysler did with the money was close down factories, close dealerships, lay off UNION WORKERS!, and move manufacturing out of the United States. Really looks like the Democrats were looking out for the people there doesn't it.

@Big-R Actually, Chrysler repaid the loan we made to them, as I understand it, so we didn't lose anything. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/business/25...As for manufacturing overseas? It is killing us BUT how much of that is the fault of the government and how much is the fault of the American consumer who *still* isn't mindful of the impact of his spending habits? If each of us refused to buy goods manufactured overseas, we would quickly see the American working class start to thrive again.

No it is not. The only way to fix the social security is to give the option to the young ones the chose to invest themselves this will opt them out and cut the burden on social security. If the clowns in DC had kept their sticky fingers out of it there might be some moneys in there.

This idea is insane. 1) Few people have the discipline to invest over a full working lifetime. 2) Of those who do few know how to do it effectively. 3) This would be an open invitation to financial crooks like Lloyd Blankfein to rip off those who come to them for advice. 4) We may someday have another republican President and congress. If that happened the stock market will probably crash like it did twice under GW Bush wiping out the gains of the few left who invested prudently.

@PNWest what are the young ones going to do when everything they paid in is gone when it is time for them. SS was not designed to retire on. It is an extra income to go with you other retirement. The Democrats do not you investing your own money due to the fact that they can not use it the way they want to. All of the clowns in Washington use the as money for everything except what it is there for. All the collected moneys for into the general fund and they place an iou in .

@scotta The smartest things that you can do as a young person is to find a career that cannot be outsourced easily, be aggressive in finding a good job and working your way up the ladder, changing jobs if a better opportunity comes along, and making sure to invest as much as you possibly can in diversified investments (broad market index funds and the like). Learn to live off of 75% of what you bring home (if you can live off of less do so) and invest the rest. Don't buy more house than you need and pay it off as quickly as you can. That way no one can take it away from you. The house counts as both shelter and an investment. You are right SS about SS. It will be nice if you get it but don't count on it.

@PNWest you don't have to shut the whole thing down just to allow 15-20% who want to manage their own retirement do so. If I had control of the money that has been taken from me that I will almost certainly never see again thanks to the govt., I would be on solid financial footing now and moving forward. I would love the chance to opt out.

@PNWest I am not a young person. I am middle age. I have worked 40 + hours a week.I started working at age 15 in a full service gas station. In case you don't know what that was we pumped you gas washed your windows checked under your hood checked the air pressure in your tires changed oil tire repair. Detailing and every thing else. At this time I was going to school full time. Went from there at age 18 to working for a barge company on the river. Fought with 2 hurricanes. Broke my neck in an auto accident. Went to work for a vending company. Worked there 15 yrs. Went from there to a oil co. Worked there for 13 yrs. Sold out and went to a new oil co. Fell off an interstate price sign caught myself with one arm pulled shoulder out of socket climbed done a 25ft ladder. Drove my self to hospital in a standard transmission. DWorked mantance at nursing home. Blew out knee had 2 surgeries lost control of quad. I also set up concerts for 9. Years running up and down the road. So don't tell me about working and investing money. If I could have invested all the as paid in. I wouldn't have to draw disability.

What about the intensely physical jobs? Does he want 70 or 75 year olds welding in shipyards or riveting beams on the 90th floor of a skyscraper because he doesn't want taxes raised on his billionaire buddies?

The sheer arrogance of the man.... I'd Nike to know how many employees age 60+ are employed at Goldman Sachs. It's one thing to say American's should worl longer, another thing to get someone to hire them. Downsized at age 50 chances of finding comparable employment <10% at age 60 0%, at age 65 food stamps and unemployment long gone you're on the junk heap

@nolefties While, I understand what you are trying to say. Your claim is just mathematically incorrect. When we are talking about taxes and federal deficits, you really can't be sloppy with the numbers (that's how we got into this whole mess in the first place).

The top 10% of earners in the US (earning 112k of more), the pay 70% of the federal income taxes or $1,600,000,000,000 with an effective tax rate of 16%. The deficit in 2011 was only $1.5T. So if you simply returned the tax rates to what they were when Ronald Reagan was in office which was far less than 100% but almost double what it is today - you technically would cover the federal deficit. I'm not saying this is a great idea, but you could do it.

Incidentally, the effective tax rate for the top earners was a crippingly 91% during the World War II era, and has pretty much fallen every year since for nearly six decades.

I'm astounded at the current mindset of today's wealthy and the Ebenezer Scrooge attitudes that they seem to have no trouble displaying in public. Is this "new" money talking? Is it an overdose of arrogance? When has the idea that "I got mine, screw you" ever been as blatantly popular?

I don't quite understand this. I have nothing against rich people. Good for you. You make lots of money. What I don't get is the "here, let me rub everyone else's face in it" that seems to come along with today's wealth. As if it's not enough to be well off, many rich people seem to hate the fact that non-rich people even exist. We work for them, we try to do a good job for them, but in the end they think of us as a necessary evil and they would dispose of us in a heartbeat if they could.

I've lost all respect for the wealthy of this country. I don't want to be like them. Nothing they do impresses me because they ruin any good qualities they may have through unbridled arrogance and contempt for those they think are beneath them. Pompous only looks good on a peacock.

Since it's obvious many people will have to work the rest of their lives the way these morons have screwed up.A mandatory four week paid vacation should be negotiated as part of the deal on any extension of retirement age.

Retirement will be a four-letter word if we keep getting Obama's over and over again. I can assure everyone born after 1965 and reading this, unless you have managed to have millions in the bank RIGHT NOW and managed some way of keeping it of the next 20 to 30 years, you ain't retiring. Period. I have no real expectations of ever "retiring" and expect to die at work. Social security will be reworked into some type of welfare gimmedat program and means tested to prevent anyone who can afford to pay into it are prevented from getting it.

You can't really live on ssi anyway. We don't need a big firm like Goldman to tell us we're going to be working longer. A lot of people i know do it because they just can't live without that routine. Others do it out of necessity because they had to take care of grand kids or support screwups. One person made an excellent point. This does not help a tradesman, such as a welder or construction worker, which is now why i fully understand the concept behind pensions.

SSI is kinda going down the shitter. The age of actually retiring is reserved only for those who have vast means, or can manage to predict financial disaster five miles down the road. It's no wonder why health insurance companies work with employers to keep em alive as long as possible, until someone becomes expensively useless, like if they get cancer.

I agree. I don't mind working longer. Work gives my life value. I look at my parents and they retired ar 65, but they both do a TON of freelance work to this day. It gives their lives quality. Not to mention, if you are a me to work, why wouldn't you?

sorry but i worked, for longer than 25years. 65 - 16 is 49 years. so i do not trust, the rest of their figures either. since according to statistics, the average retiree will not even get back as much as they contributed. not to mention, they have already raised the age of full retirement to 67. personally i do not think they should dictate, any retirement age. a person should be able, to work as long as they want.